Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that there was substantial, probative, and reliable evidence to support the trial judge’s finding that there was no confusion or prejudice where the arresting officer read the defendant and another defendant their rights at the same time. Since the decision of the trial judge was not clearly erroneous, the Court affirmed that decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.